DiFOLD Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Collapsible Container Design Patent Dispute
DiFOLD Inc. filed suit in the Southern District of Florida against a broad class of unnamed defendants, asserting two design patents covering its collapsible container product. The case closed just 51 days after filing when DiFOLD voluntarily dismissed all defendants — without prejudice — leaving the door open for future enforcement action.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 51 days
51 days — resolved well below the median district court lifecycle for patent cases
Voluntarily dismissed: what the public record does and does not tell us
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the earliest and most unilateral form of dismissal available — no judicial approval required. The absence of defendant agents on the docket is consistent with this stage of proceedings.
Pre-answer dismissalWith or without prejudice? The record is silent
The verdict text explicitly states ‘without prejudice’, meaning DiFOLD retains the right to refile claims against the same defendants on the same patents. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar future enforcement. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently extinguish those claims. Here, the docket specifies without prejudice, so DiFOLD’s enforcement rights against these parties remain intact.
Refiling rights preservedDiFOLD preserves future enforcement options
By dismissing without prejudice, DiFOLD avoids an adverse merits ruling while retaining the ability to reassert its design patents — USD1002386S and USD0935892S — against the same or similar defendants. This approach is common in ‘Schedule A’ mass enforcement campaigns where plaintiffs negotiate settlements rapidly or reassess which defendants are worth pursuing before the litigation deepens.
Enforcement rights intactSchedule A tactics signal ongoing design patent enforcement
The ‘Schedule A’ case structure — where defendants are unnamed e-commerce sellers identified in a sealed list — is widely used to pursue counterfeit or infringing listings on platforms like Amazon and Etsy. A voluntary dismissal at this stage typically suggests out-of-court resolutions with some defendants or a strategic pivot in enforcement approach. The design patents remain active enforcement tools for DiFOLD.
E-commerce enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DiFOLD Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Madison Bower | Attorney | Counsel for DiFOLD Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rossana Baeza | Attorney | Counsel for DiFOLD Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing DiFOLD Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Darrin P. Gayles | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal was filed by DiFOLD under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the provision allowing a plaintiff to exit unilaterally before any responsive pleading is filed. Critically, the notice specifies ‘without prejudice’, meaning the claims are not extinguished — DiFOLD retains full rights to refile against these defendants. The absence of any defendant counsel on record is consistent with early-stage Schedule A proceedings where defendants have not yet appeared. No merits determination was reached.
USD1002386S & USD0935892S — Collapsible Container Ornamental Designs
USD1002386S (application US29/810610) and USD0935892S (application US29/712365) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of DiFOLD’s collapsible container. Design patents cover the visual, non-functional aspects of a product — in this case, how the foldable container looks, including its shape, profile, and structural geometry when collapsed and expanded. The earlier application number for USD0935892S suggests it predates USD1002386S, indicating DiFOLD has built a layered design patent portfolio around this product line over time.
For the collapsible and reusable container market — a segment experiencing sustained growth driven by sustainability trends — design patents are a critical enforcement tool because they are faster to obtain and easier to assert than utility patents. Any competitor or marketplace seller whose foldable container product is substantially similar in appearance to the figures in these patents risks infringement under the ‘ordinary observer’ test. DiFOLD’s decision to assert both patents simultaneously in a Schedule A action signals a deliberate strategy to dominate the ornamental design space for this product category.
Should your collapsible container design be cleared against USD1002386S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling foldable or collapsible containers — particularly through e-commerce channels — should assess freedom to operate against USD1002386S and USD0935892S. The Schedule A enforcement model targets marketplace sellers directly, meaning smaller brands and private-label operators on Amazon, Etsy, or similar platforms face real exposure. If your product shares visual similarity with DiFOLD’s patented design, an FTO analysis before launch or continued sale is commercially prudent.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to run structured freedom-to-operate analyses against specific design patent figures, comparing your product’s ornamental features against the protected scope of USD1002386S and USD0935892S. Eureka can also surface related design patent families, identify prior art that may inform a validity challenge, and flag other pending DiFOLD applications in the collapsible container space — giving your team a complete enforcement risk picture before committing to a product design.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1002386S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases — collapsible & consumer goods
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions filed in Florida and other districts targeting e-commerce sellers of collapsible and foldable consumer goods.
What this case signals for the collapsible container design IP landscape
DiFOLD’s Schedule A filing is consistent with an aggressive design patent enforcement posture in the consumer goods e-commerce sector.
Schedule A cases rarely end at first dismissal — monitor for refiling
A without-prejudice dismissal in a Schedule A case typically indicates partial resolution with some defendants or a reassessment of the defendant list, not abandonment of the IP position. Competitors and marketplace sellers in the collapsible container space should treat this case as a signal of active enforcement intent, not a concluded dispute.
Two design patents in play materially widens the infringement surface
USD1002386S and USD0935892S together cover distinct ornamental aspects of DiFOLD’s collapsible container. Sellers offering visually similar foldable container products — regardless of brand — face elevated risk of being named in future Schedule A filings if their product aesthetics overlap with the protected designs.
DiFOLD v Individuals — key questions answered
DiFOLD Inc. asserted two U.S. design patents: USD1002386S (application US29/810610) and USD0935892S (application US29/712365), both covering ornamental designs for a collapsible container. The case was filed on 25 March 2024 in the Southern District of Florida.
The public record does not state a reason. In Schedule A enforcement actions, without-prejudice voluntary dismissals typically suggest that the plaintiff reached informal resolutions with some defendants, was reassessing its defendant list, or strategically withdrew to refile with an updated schedule. DiFOLD’s rights to refile against these defendants are preserved.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is a plaintiff’s unilateral exit before any defendant has answered. It carries no merits determination and, when filed without prejudice as here, leaves the asserted patents — USD1002386S and USD0935892S — fully intact and enforceable. DiFOLD can reassert them in a new action.
In Schedule A patent cases, defendants are not named individually in the public complaint. Instead, they are listed on a separately filed schedule, often sealed initially, identifying infringing sellers — typically e-commerce marketplace operators. This structure allows plaintiffs to pursue multiple anonymous infringers in a single action, commonly used in design patent enforcement against online counterfeit or copycat sellers.
Yes. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice has no effect on the validity or enforceability of the underlying patent. USD1002386S and USD0935892S remain in force. DiFOLD retains all rights to assert these design patents in future litigation against the same or different defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.